From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:36087 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbbKPIC0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 03:02:26 -0500 Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so167387854pac.3 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:02:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 14/50] powerpc/powernv: M64 support on P7IOC To: Gavin Shan , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <1446642770-4681-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1446642770-4681-15-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, bhelgaas@google.com, grant.likely@linaro.org, robherring2@gmail.com, panto@antoniou-consulting.com, frowand.list@gmail.com From: Alexey Kardashevskiy Message-ID: <56498D8A.2050505@ozlabs.ru> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 19:02:18 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1446642770-4681-15-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; format=flowed Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/05/2015 12:12 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: > This enables M64 window on P7IOC, which has been enabled on PHB3. > Different from PHB3 where 16 M64 BARs are supported and each of > them can be owned by one particular PE# exclusively or divided > evenly to 256 segments, every P7IOC PHB has 16 M64 BARs and each > of them are divided to 8 segments. So every P7IOC PHB supports > 128 M64 segments in total. P7IOC has M64DT, which helps mapping > one particular M64 segment# to arbitrary PE#. PHB3 doesn't have > M64DT, indicating that one M64 segment can only be pinned to the > fixed PE#. In order to have same code to support M64 on P7IOC and > PHB3, we just provide 128 M64 segments on every P7IOC PHB and each > of them is pinned to the fixed PE# by bypassing the function of > M64DT. In turn, we just need different phb->init_m64() for P7IOC > and PHB3 to support M64. I thought we decided (Ben suggested?) not to push P7IOC code now (or ever) as there is no user for it, has this changed? btw please put ioda1/ioda2/p7ioc/etc to the subject line to make it easier to see how much work is there about particular PHB type. You rename quite many functions and I generally want to ask you to group all renaming patches first but it would also make sense to keep them close to (for example) p7ioc-related patches so having more descriptive subject lines may help. Thanks. -- Alexey